Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Thorsten Behrens]

Simon Phipps wrote:
> Dennis wrote:
> > So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical
> > example is really perfect.
> >
> 
> I still disagree. TDC is getting temporary agency to act on TDF's behalf
> doing something TDF's board recognises it is very poor at executing. TDF
> could pass that agency to another entity at short notice any time.
>
I agree with Simon. The comparison does not hold. Provisions to make
sure TDC cannot permanently capture LibreOffice on app stores can
easily be put into the TM license.

Cheers, Thorsten

-- 
Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Dennis Roczek 
wrote:

> Hi Simon,
> Am 02.03.2020 um 11:02 schrieb Simon Phipps:
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  wrote:
>
>> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the proposal
>> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
>> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, Canonical's
>> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
>> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>>
>
> That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication you
> make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as TDF's agent
> in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the overall LibreOffice
> trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other entities in the ecosystem like
> CIB, Collabora and the retailers of various clothing. The license is
> exclusive *only* *in the app stores*, and that is because TDF will also
> be acting against knock-off apps selling the brand in ways that reflect
> poorly on LibreOffice. Again, the attempt to equate this to Canonical is
> very unhelpful, although your parting shot is illuminating.
>
> But on the other hand you are also saying, that it is getting harder and
> harder to install software (on properterian systems) without the app stores
> and more over you do not have any choise on Windows S or iOS, which is
> correct. From the vendors view it is even logical (earning money, keeping
> the system secure, etc. etc.).
>
> So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical
> example is really perfect.
>
> I hope you understand that many in the community do not fear that these
> "decisions" were made in good faith or might be correct at the moment, but
> can lead to "bigger problems" in future (saying 10 or 20 years?).
>

I still disagree. TDC is getting temporary agency to act on TDF's behalf
doing something TDF's board recognises it is very poor at executing. TDF
could pass that agency to another entity at short notice any time. In fact,
if things became any more constrained I would not feel comfortable hiring
staff to work on them.

Further, TDC is incorporating as a legal entity that has to act formally in
the service of its community and has no shareholders so the motivation to
create a post-trading surplus is absent. This is all nothing like Canonical
where Mark was trying to prove he could create a profitable business in
parallel with Ubuntu.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Dennis Roczek]

Hi Simon,

Am 02.03.2020 um 11:02 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  > wrote:
>
> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the
> proposal
> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC,
> Canonical's
> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>
>
> That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication
> you make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as
> TDF's agent in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the
> overall LibreOffice trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other
> entities in the ecosystem like CIB, Collabora and the retailers of
> various clothing. The license is exclusive *only* *in the app stores*,
> and that is because TDF will also be acting against knock-off apps
> selling the brand in ways that reflect poorly on LibreOffice. Again,
> the attempt to equate this to Canonical is very unhelpful, although
> your parting shot is illuminating.

But on the other hand you are also saying, that it is getting harder and
harder to install software (on properterian systems) without the app
stores and more over you do not have any choise on Windows S or iOS,
which is correct. From the vendors view it is even logical (earning
money, keeping the system secure, etc. etc.).

So basical TDC is getting a monopoly on many system, hence the Cannoical
example is really perfect.

I hope you understand that many in the community do not fear that these
"decisions" were made in good faith or might be correct at the moment,
but can lead to "bigger problems" in future (saying 10 or 20 years?).

Dennis

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Heiko Tietze]

It seems to me that TDF hasn't been efficient in fighting against unauthorized 
use of the brand. The app stores are full of "liberoffices". Why not doing this 
by TDC?


On 2 March 2020 11:02:16 CET, Simon Phipps  wrote:
> license is exclusive *only* *in the app
> stores*, and that is because TDF will also
> be acting against knock-off apps selling the
> brand in ways that reflect poorly
> on LibreOffice. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 4:32 AM Brett Cornwall  wrote:

> I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the proposal
> appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a
> trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, Canonical's
> founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could
> survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.
>

That assertion about TDC is also incorrect. Far from the implication you
make, TDC is being granted only the necessary rights to act as TDF's agent
in the app stores. Nothing more. TDF still controls the overall LibreOffice
trademark, and TDF also licenses it to other entities in the ecosystem like
CIB, Collabora and the retailers of various clothing. The license is
exclusive *only* *in the app stores*, and that is because TDF will also be
acting against knock-off apps selling the brand in ways that reflect poorly
on LibreOffice. Again, the attempt to equate this to Canonical is very
unhelpful, although your parting shot is illuminating.

S.

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Brett Cornwall]

On 2020-03-01 20:32, Brett Cornwall wrote:
I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the 
proposal appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive 
rights to a trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, 
Canonical's founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free 
software could survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.


Correction: Could *not* survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Brett Cornwall]

On 2020-02-28 15:51, Michael Stahl wrote:

On 28.02.20 15:04, Brett Cornwall wrote:


Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created 
underneath the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and 
Canonical are two living examples. Sacrifices to user empowerment 
are


off-topic, but: how is Canonical related to any non-profit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd doesn't mention anything.


Mark Shuttleworth began the Ubuntu project with the express intention of 
keeping Ubuntu for the community while also creating Canonical as a 
for-profit company in an attempt to make a consumer-grade 
support/development experience. Ubuntu has a board wherein Canonical 
members were allotted a maximum number of a seats to guarantee community 
member additions. (Disclaimer, I haven't spent much time in the Ubuntu 
ecosystem for some number of years now so things may have changed).


Over time, the boundaries between Ubuntu/Canonical dissolved as more 
user-hostile measures made its way into Ubuntu - Not enough money was 
being made from Ubuntu's lackluster business models (AFAICT, selling 
*tshirts* was practically the only long-term revenue stream they 
retained...) so the Ubuntu platform slowly degraded into a distribution 
that went from "not recommended by the FSF" to outright labelled as 
spyware.


I believe that Canonical is related here because, like TDC, the proposal 
appears to be that a for-profit entity be given exclusive rights to a 
trademark to a supposed community-owned product. Like TDC, Canonical's 
founding idealized Shuttleworth's pessimism that free software could 
survive without a for-profit entity as its protector.




3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the 
lifeblood of LibreOffice will pivot from one of community 
involvement to one of company culture (with community involvement as 
a PR spin)?


what exactly do you mean? the majority of bugfixes and new features 
already come from developers employed by companies such as Red Hat, 
Collabora, CIB, and this has been the case for most of the existence 
of the project.  of course most if not all of the developers employed 
by these companies consider themselves members of the LO community, 
and why shouldn't they?




Like the Linux kernel, the product's ecosystem benefits greatly from 
external for-profit organizations' contributions! But I would point out 
that these businesses do not own the LibreOffice product itself - they 
merely contribute or create their own commercial fork. There's nothing 
wrong with this, of course! But imagine if Debian had granted rights to 
its trademark exclusively to Canonical back in 2005. Debian would be a 
very different distribution today if it were under the stewardship of an 
entity expected to turn profits. And the community would likely not be 
happy with the Debian project as a whole: It'd be just another consumer 
distro and the tenets guiding Debian's community would have likely 
withered.



Simon claims that I'm overstating TDC's influence - that will be 
addressed in its relevant thread. My reply here is only to expound on 
how I found Canonical relevant to my questions.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Brett!

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:05 PM Brett Cornwall  wrote:

>
> Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created
> underneath the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and
> Canonical are two living examples. Sacrifices to user empowerment are often
> made at Mozilla Corporation (e.g. Pocket integration, advertising
> partnerships to silently install code on browsers, etc. - The list grows
> longer by the month as new scandals appear). Canonical has made similar
> sacrifices (e.g. Ubuntu One proprietary service integration,
> cease-and-desists towards fixubuntu.com).
>
>
> 1. How would TDF intend to protect users against the inevitable
> temptations to prioritize money/brand over users/computing ethics? "We can
> always pull the plug" is not a compelling argument as that's only used for
> the direst of circumstances, not the slow poisoning of the well that
> Mozilla have experienced.
>

This is overstating TDC's vision, so the comparisons are massively
unhelpful. It is being created to put the LibreOffice package TDF makes
into the Windows and Mac appstores on TDF's behalf, and collect a small
payment for the convenience. It will make clear the origin of the software
as far as it is allowed to by those stores. It will spend the money paying
developers in the community (both larger and smaller) to improve
LibreOffice, through the usual TDF ESC processes. So no significant mission
is leaving TDF. This is all in the CIC36 community support statement, which
is this hadn't blown up now for some reason I was planning to post next
week once the steering group agreed it. Your concerns relate to a company
creating a product and operating independently of the community, which is
not what's proposed here.


>
> 2. How will TDF assure communities that the creation of a for-profit
> entity to manage branding that the above examples will not occur?
>

TDC is not managing TDF's branding. It just has a narrow, well-bounded
license to act on TDF's behalf in app stores. Full stop.


>
> 3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the lifeblood of
> LibreOffice will pivot from one of community involvement to one of company
> culture (with community involvement as a PR spin)?
>

Because we're not creating that sort of corporate vehicle.

Cheers,

Simon
(proposed CEO for TDC and former TDF director)

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Michael Stahl]

On 28.02.20 15:04, Brett Cornwall wrote:


Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created 
underneath the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and 
Canonical are two living examples. Sacrifices to user empowerment are 


off-topic, but: how is Canonical related to any non-profit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd doesn't mention anything.

3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the lifeblood 
of LibreOffice will pivot from one of community involvement to one of 
company culture (with community involvement as a PR spin)?


what exactly do you mean? the majority of bugfixes and new features 
already come from developers employed by companies such as Red Hat, 
Collabora, CIB, and this has been the case for most of the existence of 
the project.  of course most if not all of the developers employed by 
these companies consider themselves members of the LO community, and why 
shouldn't they?


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Michael Meeks]

Hi Brett,

First thank you for your questions; cogent, lucid, well articulated &
challenging :-)

On 28/02/2020 14:04, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created
> underneath the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and
> Canonical are two living examples.

Perhaps in both these cases - the difference is exclusive ownership of
the TM here, and they totally dominate their ecosystems & communities
whether intentionally or not. I guess Mozilla looks to me structurally
not unlike TDF plus TDF's captive business entity.

Similarly the intention with TDC is not to build a Mozilla style
monolith that hires developers - but to contract that out in order to
grow the number of independent companies & individuals contributing to
development. That can help to build the ecosystem. Over time - new
companies and individuals will want to diversify their revenue sources
and evangelize LibreOffice to new customers, and niches. We saw this
historically with Nokia's investment into Maemo - a flourishing of many
companies and interest and investment.

> Canonical has made similar
> sacrifices (e.g. Ubuntu One proprietary service integration,
> cease-and-desists towards fixubuntu.com).

I know nothing of the specifics here. TDC will emphatically not own the
LibreOffice brand: TDF will.

TDC will have a limited, unilaterally terminate-able license and
limited exclusivity to use it in app-stores.

So in the case of a (critical?) website - TDF could give them a license
to use the brand in a suitable way as now; why not.

> 1. How would TDF intend to protect users against the inevitable
> temptations to prioritize money/brand over users/computing ethics? "We
> can always pull the plug" is not a compelling argument as that's only
> used for the direst of circumstances, not the slow poisoning of the well
> that Mozilla have experienced.

I would imagine that the TDF members can elect boards that would put
pressure on TDC to stop doing that ultimately up to and including the
option of pulling the plug by choosing to revoke TDC's TM license
unilaterally.

> 2. How will TDF assure communities that the creation of a for-profit
> entity to manage branding that the above examples will not occur?

Hmm; I don't see TDC as managing branding, I would expect TDF to do
that. I would expect TDC to follow the branding coming out of the
marketing / UX teams in the community - that TDF are involved with.

> 3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the lifeblood
> of LibreOffice will pivot from one of community involvement to one of
> company culture (with community involvement as a PR spin)?

So - I think this is an excellent question for any corporate or
non-profit's involvement in FLOSS. It is the same question whenever TDF
hires a staff member to do something the community can also do - and
there really is no easy answer. TDF staff (typically) have a heavy focus
on not per-se doing the job, but growing and enabling the community
around doing that job.

Beyond that, having many diverse entities and individuals contributing
is surely a good thing; certainly rather than a monolithic organization
which both Mozilla & Ubuntu are.

My 2 cents anyway,

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

[board-discuss] How is TDC compelled to keep the user first?

[Brett Cornwall]

Other Free Software projects have had for-profit entities created underneath 
the stewardship of a non-profit; Mozilla Corporation and Canonical are two 
living examples. Sacrifices to user empowerment are often made at Mozilla 
Corporation (e.g. Pocket integration, advertising partnerships to silently 
install code on browsers, etc. - The list grows longer by the month as new 
scandals appear). Canonical has made similar sacrifices (e.g. Ubuntu One 
proprietary service integration, cease-and-desists towards fixubuntu.com).


1. How would TDF intend to protect users against the inevitable temptations to prioritize 
money/brand over users/computing ethics? "We can always pull the plug" is not a 
compelling argument as that's only used for the direst of circumstances, not the slow 
poisoning of the well that Mozilla have experienced.

2. How will TDF assure communities that the creation of a for-profit entity to 
manage branding that the above examples will not occur?

3. What assurances does TDF offer that assuage fears that the lifeblood of 
LibreOffice will pivot from one of community involvement to one of company 
culture (with community involvement as a PR spin)?


Thank you for your time.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature